Colorado Shooting Question

Where do you get all this "free will" stuff? I don't see that in the bible anywhere. Man's will is most certainly NOT free. You are either bound by sin and Satan or a slave to righteousness. You have free agency to make decisions without compulsion but free will? Please.
 
If we hope to win them to Christ, we must find a way to explain how these events fit His love for us instead of giving satan the credit in such a generic answer as "evil exists".

I think that "evil exists" IS the answer. It is because of the reality of a real Satan that we need a Savior. The world is blinded by his lies and his demon helpers are at work all around us. People might want to have an answer for how God allows it, but the heart of the matter is that they are slaves to Satan and they need to accept freedom from their bonds.
 
I had this question posed to me a lot this last Sunday.

Everything is always traced back to the spirit. People can have perfect lives on the outside in this world, but their spirit is still sick without the life-giving power of Christ within.

So many people say they were shocked by what happened; I can honestly say that it does not surprise me, because the more people are starved of Jesus, the more they will hurt, and eventually the more hurt they will cause themselves and others.

Gun control is not the answer, not even drug control... those things are all secondary to the root answer; and that root answer is Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
[toj.cc]phantom;457794 said:
When tested the guy had no "bath salts" in his system, just marijuana. And didn't the Aurora Shooter drop out of school a year ago, what was he still doing working with things that make you go crazy?

Source on "zombie"

I disagree. You are correct, but the reason they can't outlaw bath salts is that the makers can easily change the molecular make up where it's still bath salts, but that it's not registering as such on tests. In other words, they can tweak the drug so that it doesn't show up on tests because the testing looks for a very specific molecular make up. Not sure if that's making sense, but most in the medical community think it was in fact bath salts.
 
Where do you get all this "free will" stuff? I don't see that in the bible anywhere. Man's will is most certainly NOT free. You are either bound by sin and Satan or a slave to righteousness. You have free agency to make decisions without compulsion but free will? Please.

"Free Will" as a term is not in the Bible. However it is shown throughout the Bible that humans have the ability to make choices that are not from God, (i.e. their own) which is what the term "free will" is generally accepted to mean.

I disagree. You are correct, but the reason they can't outlaw bath salts is that the makers can easily change the molecular make up where it's still bath salts, but that it's not registering as such on tests. In other words, they can tweak the drug so that it doesn't show up on tests because the testing looks for a very specific molecular make up. Not sure if that's making sense, but most in the medical community think it was in fact bath salts.

The way around that is to outlaw the "bath salts" genre of drugs (genre isn't the word, but it gets the point across) which has been done in multiple states already.
 
Last edited:
Watching a court video of Holmes, I notice he looks looney.

From what Gerbil is saying, I believe Holmes has Split Personalities.

At a point of his life, he must of snapped and another persona took over.

The only sure way to be correct is if a Psychologist examines his state of mind.
 
Where do you get all this "free will" stuff? I don't see that in the bible anywhere. Man's will is most certainly NOT free. You are either bound by sin and Satan or a slave to righteousness. You have free agency to make decisions without compulsion but free will? Please.

Sorry, ewok - but theologians of almost every denomination for the last 2,000 years - even those who are the strongest predestination/election/omniscient/omnipotent/prevenient grace holders - would say that man has free will in the moral/immoral decisions he makes.

While the term may not be in the Bible (similar to "rapture" not being in the Bible) the concept is clear throughout. From Adam and Eve to Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, John and even Judas - people have exercised free will in life choices that helped or hindered their relationship with and usefulness to God.

Maybe what you are referring to as free will is different than what I am referring to...
 
Actually what you are referring to as free will is really free agency. The will is not free. There is a big difference.

Man is a free moral agent, but he does not have a free will. Man is only free to act according to his nature, and he was born with a sinful nature.
 
Last edited:
I think Ewok was trying to make a point through exaggeration. Or something along those lines. Unless I'm mistaken, what I got from Ewok's post was that too often people claim free will as an excuse to do what they want, or explain other's behaviors, but in reality we do only have two choices - God or Satan. While we have the free ability to choose between the two, everything boils down to this absolute. Either you are for God, or you are not. Lukewarm is not an option.

I read in the paper today that a common theme of the massacres throughout the world in the 20th and 21st century is a sense of unrecognized worth. Most of the people that go on killing sprees claim that they were spurned of their worth, either through academic acknowledgment, a recent breakup, etc., something, somehow that made them feel as if they were not important. To rectify this they prove to the world that they are meaningful, unfortunately they do this through killings. The journalist's purpose in righting was how to prevent these killings and his conclusion came down to relationships. Gun-control, drug-control, government-spy-Big-Brother monitoring, isn't going to stop these people. But people can stop these people. It's sad how it takes a tragedy like this to happen for people to understand that love is what we're lacking.
 
Actually what you are referring to as free will is really free agency. The will is not free. There is a big difference.

Man is a free moral agent, but he does not have a free will. Man is only free to act according to his nature, and he was born with a sinful nature.

Can you define "free will"? By "free will" do you mean if he had "free will" we can flap our arms and fly? Or are you referring to free will in terms of Soteriology/Salvation?
 
Can you define "free will"? By "free will" do you mean if he had "free will" we can flap our arms and fly? Or are you referring to free will in terms of Soteriology/Salvation?

Can unregenerate man choose to freely do good? No way, his will is not free. He is in submission to sin.



Here comes a wall of text but by reading only the first 2 paragraphs you should have your answer.

Free will vs. Free Agency

Visitor: What's the difference between freewill and free-agency?

Response: While descriptions may vary, I find the following explanation to be helpful. When it is said that people have no "free will" it does not mean that a person is coerced from the outside and must act against his will. Let that be clear up front. With this in mind, it is important that we learn to distinguish coersion vs. necessity. We are indeed free of external coersion but not free of necessity. Let me explain:

What we mean by denying a (fallen) person has free will is that he/she will act, by necessity, according to the corruption of his/her nature. They are in bondage to sin meaning the love of God and His law are not the unregenerate persons' deepest animating motive and principle (nor is it his motive at all), in anything he does. No one is coercing a sinner to act as they do. Man eagerly volunteers his submission to sin. This means, the unregenerate person will always choose according to who they are by nature, driven by their disposition. In other words, our choices are all voluntary, but we are not free to choose otherwise because we will not understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and indeed are hostile to them, according to Scripture. Men love darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19, 20) Without the Holy Spirit, man, by nature, is hostile to Christ. In other words, we are in bondage to sin until Christ sets us free. Jesus himself says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, that a thornbush cannot bear figs. Jesus is teaching us that the nature of a thing determines BY NECESSITY (not coersion) the direction he/she will take.

Consider the concept of free will by applying it to God Himself. If freedom were defined as the freedom to choose otherwise, let us ask ourselves, does God have such freedom to choose otherwise? In other words, can God freely choose to do good or evil as He pleases? No, of course not. God in his essence is holy and therefore, by definition, cannot sin or be unholy. If he sinned or broke His sure promise He would no longer be God. The same kind of example can be applied to the glorified saints in heaven. God has sealed them in righteousness and they can no longer sin, and more than this, they have no ability to sin or choose otherwise. Yet we consider them the MOST free of all creatures.

Thus the Bible defines freedom, not as the freedom to choose otherwise in any way we please (contrary to our innate disposition), but as holiness, freedom from sin. Read Romans chapter 6. When Jesus says He will set people free, He does not say they are now free to choose good or evil but He will set them free from the bondage of sin. And where there is bondage, by definition there is no freedom. Yes we have free agency, that is, we can voluntarily choose according to our desires, but because our desires are in bondage to corruption of nature this is not freedom in the Biblical sense. Liberation of the will occurs when the Holy Spirit acts to free us.

Consider the opposite theological position which affirms that God elects people based on some kind of forseen faith. If God already knows who will be saved even before He creates them, then such a reality (their salvation) is fixed and cannot be otherwise. Thus God would be wasting His time to try to convert persons whom He knows will never come to faith. Synergists say that God is trying to save every man, yet such a position is untenable if God already knows who is to be saved, that is, unless you are willing to concede that God is not omniscient, but then you would be denying that He is indeed God.

If God knows the end from the beginning exhaustively then He knows who will be saved even prior to creating them. There is certainty here, an unchangable certainty. An additional problem with this is that it means that there is no real free will in this Arminian foreseen faith position because the future is already certain and cannot be otherwise. Yet in this same view God does not determine this future, and thus something else, like Fate perhaps, determines who will believe. The position is so untenable that many traditional Arminians have fled to become open theists who believe God has no exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. But this heretical view will not stand and is sub-Christian.

Hope this helps
jwh

Source
 
Last edited:
Can unregenerate man choose to freely do good? No way, his will is not free.



Here comes a wall of text but by reading only the first 2 paragraphs you should have your answer.

Free will vs. Free Agency

Visitor: What's the difference between freewill and free-agency?

Response: While descriptions may vary, I find the following explanation to be helpful. When it is said that people have no "free will" it does not mean that a person is coerced from the outside and must act against his will. Let that be clear up front. With this in mind, it is important that we learn to distinguish coersion vs. necessity. We are indeed free of external coersion but not free of necessity. Let me explain:

What we mean by denying a (fallen) person has free will is that he/she will act, by necessity, according to the corruption of his/her nature. They are in bondage to sin meaning the love of God and His law are not the unregenerate persons' deepest animating motive and principle (nor is it his motive at all), in anything he does. No one is coercing a sinner to act as they do. Man eagerly volunteers his submission to sin. This means, the unregenerate person will always choose according to who they are by nature, driven by their disposition. In other words, our choices are all voluntary, but we are not free to choose otherwise because we will not understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) and indeed are hostile to them, according to Scripture. Men love darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19, 20) Without the Holy Spirit, man, by nature, is hostile to Christ. In other words, we are in bondage to sin until Christ sets us free. Jesus himself says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, that a thornbush cannot bear figs. Jesus is teaching us that the nature of a thing determines BY NECESSITY (not coersion) the direction he/she will take.

Consider the concept of free will by applying it to God Himself. If freedom were defined as the freedom to choose otherwise, let us ask ourselves, does God have such freedom to choose otherwise? In other words, can God freely choose to do good or evil as He pleases? No, of course not. God in his essence is holy and therefore, by definition, cannot sin or be unholy. If he sinned or broke His sure promise He would no longer be God. The same kind of example can be applied to the glorified saints in heaven. God has sealed them in righteousness and they can no longer sin, and more than this, they have no ability to sin or choose otherwise. Yet we consider them the MOST free of all creatures.

Thus the Bible defines freedom, not as the freedom to choose otherwise in any way we please (contrary to our innate disposition), but as holiness, freedom from sin. Read Romans chapter 6. When Jesus says He will set people free, He does not say they are now free to choose good or evil but He will set them free from the bondage of sin. And where there is bondage, by definition there is no freedom. Yes we have free agency, that is, we can voluntarily choose according to our desires, but because our desires are in bondage to corruption of nature this is not freedom in the Biblical sense. Liberation of the will occurs when the Holy Spirit acts to free us.

Consider the opposite theological position which affirms that God elects people based on some kind of forseen faith. If God already knows who will be saved even before He creates them, then such a reality (their salvation) is fixed and cannot be otherwise. Thus God would be wasting His time to try to convert persons whom He knows will never come to faith. Synergists say that God is trying to save every man, yet such a position is untenable if God already knows who is to be saved, that is, unless you are willing to concede that God is not omniscient, but then you would be denying that He is indeed God.

If God knows the end from the beginning exhaustively then He knows who will be saved even prior to creating them. There is certainty here, an unchangable certainty. An additional problem with this is that it means that there is no real free will in this Arminian foreseen faith position because the future is already certain and cannot be otherwise. Yet in this same view God does not determine this future, and thus something else, like Fate perhaps, determines who will believe. The position is so untenable that many traditional Arminians have fled to become open theists who believe God has no exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. But this heretical view will not stand and is sub-Christian.

Hope this helps
jwh [/spoiler]

I will say that I am neither a Calvinist or Arminian but I am leaning toward Molinism. William Lane Craig writes:

1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable. D. A. Carson identifies nine streams of texts affirming human freedom: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel against God, (4) people’s sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6) people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God’s initiative, (8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, pp. 18-22). These passages rule out a deterministic understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there’s no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism#ixzz21fCdCe7U

Also:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-and-free-will
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-molinism-compatibilism-and-free-will

A question for you:
Matthew 23:37 Jesus speaks: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Is Jesus being facetious with us here? After all, he says "Ye would not" yet it is Him (God) who is not allowing them to come to Him according to your view! What say you?
 
First off this does not really go with the conversation at hand, because I am talking about the condition of current man's will before conversion and being in bondage to sin. This verse speaks of people pre-Crucifixion and regardless it says they chose not to be protected by Him. Looks like they exercised their free agency to me. There is no "not allowing" or facetious taking place.
 
Also this is really hijacking the thread. If you want to keep discussing this, start a new one and I will gladly respond there. :)
 
First off this does not really go with the conversation at hand, because I am talking about the condition of current man's will before conversion and being in bondage to sin. This verse speaks of people pre-Crucifixion and regardless it says they chose not to be protected by Him. Looks like they exercised their free agency to me. There is no "not allowing" or facetious taking place.

Ugh, I don't know if your playing word games with me or not. :confused: So men can exercise their "free agency" but just not when it comes to salvation? Also, can you explain how God changed man's condition of will before pre-Crucifixion and post? You use the terms will and agency at...your own will...agency, err...Heh. :p Anyway, I'm stepping back before this debate really explodes. Read what William Lane Craig writes, he is a scholar, I am not. I am just your brother (or Sister) in Christ and if you want, I have two mp3 debates between Dr. Michael Brown and Calvinist Dr. James White. I have listened to both debates at least 3 times each. Dr. Brown is not an Arminian or Molinist. Again, if you want them, I'll upload them because they are hard to find.

EDIT: Yea, consider thread hi-jacked, lol. Sorry Gerbil :( @ewoksrule: If you want to answer my questions, you can PM me.
 
Last edited:
I will send you a PM later on. :) I looked up those debates, sounds very interesting and I will try to listen to at least the first one. I love Dr. White and have never seen him "lose" a debate before, so this certainly should be enlightening.
 
Last edited:
This is where I disagree with you. The Bible is full of stories of bad things happening because God wanted them to. Job and Joseph are both great examples. Joseph even tells his brothers that they meant him evil but God meant it for good.

We are too quick to give satan and evil power and credit for things that happen that we don't understand. The Bible clearly tells us that satan walks about seeking whom he may devour. But we also see in his conversation with God that he is limited to what he can and can't do. We must always remember tho that evil is in this world.

However, when we look at these events (or any "bad" thing that happens) we must realize either God was powerless to stop it or He allowed it to happen. If He allowed it to happen then He is to some degree complicit in what happened. This means either He is also evil or these events server some greater purpose that only He understands.

The lost will always want to know why a Loving God could allow such evil to exist and to do the things they do, why bad things happen to good people. The inconvenient truth for us is that it serves His will and purpose. If we hope to win them to Christ, we must find a way to explain how these events fit His love for us instead of giving satan the credit in such a generic answer as "evil exists".

As a side note, it seems that every time something like this happens, people turn to God for comfort and answers. Less than 3000 people died in the 9/11 attacks and almost the entire nation turned to God for a good long while. However, over 3000 children are aborted in the US each day and it generates no extra anger or prayer. No turning to God happens unless "evil happens" publicly.

I haven't read the entire thread yet and someone else may have explained this better, but I have to throw a flag on this one.

God did not want this evil event to occur. God did not want Job to suffer. Satan was allowed to have dominion over Job for a time, to demonstrate the depth of his faith in God. As a father, I do not want my son to fall off his bike and scrape his knee but there may be a situation in which I allow it to happen. Say he is riding in an unsafe fassion in the drive way. He will not take my correction. Even though I can see he is going to fall and hurt himself, I allow it to happen in a safe and controlled location, so that he will learn from his mistake rather than prevent it. That way he learns to ride safely when on the street as opposed to the drive way.

God want's what is best for us. He can create good things out of tragedies like this. If we say that he wants to harm us, or harm to come to us, we call into question His benevolence. God is good, of that there is no doubt. He may allow bad things to happen so that we experience a greater good from those things.

I would provide scriptural basis, but I am running late. Sorry when I catch up on this discussion I will try to be more complete in my thoughts.
 
Is it wrong that one time I actually wanted my wife to fall off her bike when she rode down the rainy hill after I repeatedly told her to turn around and head back?
 
"Free Will" as a term is not in the Bible. However it is shown throughout the Bible that humans have the ability to make choices that are not from God, (i.e. their own) which is what the term "free will" is generally accepted to mean.



The way around that is to outlaw the "bath salts" genre of drugs (genre isn't the word, but it gets the point across) which has been done in multiple states already.

I was explaining why the test showed negative for bath salts.
 
Back
Top